Stephen Hawking & God

Is God needed to create the universe?

Stephen Hawking, in his recent book The Grand Design, breaks the news that “God” was not needed to create the universe; rather, all that is needed are the "laws of nature."

Given my background in both a Torah and science, I could agree with his statement. How so? It all comes down to how we define "God," and what exactly are these "laws of nature."

From time immemorial, philosophers have wondered if "something" (especially our seemingly boundless and magnificent universe) could be created from "nothing." The verdict from science is now in, and the answer is: It could possibly have happened from what is called a "quantum vacuum fluctuation."1

Since such a fluctuation can be explained by quantum mechanics – part of the laws of nature – Hawking feels confident in proclaiming that all of existence can be explained by merely invoking the "laws of nature" which contain all the forces and principles that guide the material world.

But is the answer so simple?

Since these wondrous "laws of nature" are the cause of existence, they would have had to exist prior to the creation of the universe. And since time and space themselves are dimensions within the created universe, the laws of nature would have to be outside of time and space.

In other words, these laws themselves – as the infinite source of finite time and space itself – would need to be eternal.

It may make Dr. Hawking feel better referring to the infinite Creator as "the laws of nature," but most people call this "God."

What we have, then, is an infinite, non-physical "power," totally outside of time and space that created the universe. What does this sound like to you? It may make Dr. Hawking feel better referring to the infinite Creator of the universe as "the laws of nature," but from where I come from, most people call this "God."

In fact, this is essentially the Torah’s definition of God's Name "Elokim," the will of the infinite creator as expressed through the laws of nature.2 Indeed, the only name used for God throughout the creation narrative is "Elokim."3

A Caring, Benevolent God

In fairness to Dr. Hawking, I don't think his main issue is with "God" as the non-physical "power" that created the universe. This is probably why even he, on a number of occasions, invokes the term "God,”4 if for no other reason than lack of a better metaphor to visualize for us the mystery and grandeur of our universe, and the "power" or "law" behind its creation.

Rather, I believe that when Dr. Hawking says there is no need for "God," he is referring to another aspect of God – known in the Bible as the "Tetragrammaton," the ineffable name, YKVK. The name Elokim represents the aspect of exacting laws expressed through "cause and effect," that are seemingly "blind" and not always benevolent to the will of those being effected by those laws; the Tetragrammaton, however, represents the benevolent plan and purpose of the universe that uses the laws of nature as the means for its actualization.5

According to Dr. Hawking, there is no need for such a "power" to be actively and "personally" involved with and guiding the universe, and who cares about its creations and the direction that they evolve. Rather, once the "laws of nature" created the initial random set of conditions, all that is needed to make our world a place where complex and information-rich life could develop is "chance.”6

Rolling the Dice

But could we really have gotten so lucky?

According to the highly respected and most widely read scientific journal, Scientific American, this would statistically be just about impossible on one roll of the cosmic dice, since the properties of atomic and sub-atomic particles conducive to forming life are so specific.7

Just a few of the many examples of “luck”:

For complex life in any form, there must be three spatial dimensions (length, width, height), and one time dimension (time only moves forward, never backward). Further, the relationship between mass and gravity must be a very close match to our universe.

The charge of the proton (the particles in the center of atoms) must be exactly equal and opposite to the charge of an electron (the particles that form a cloud surrounding the center of atoms), even though the proton has a mass 1,837 times that of an electron.

The force that holds atoms together, the strong nuclear force, is balanced on a knife for allowing hydrogen atoms to be super-abundant in the universe. No hydrogen, no stars. Stars make their light and energy by fusing hydrogen, the lightest of all the elements, into helium, the second lightest of all the elements, and that indirectly means no heavier elements – and hence no life. Carbon, the one element able to form the complex chains required for life, is built from lighter elements within the cores of stars. The process involves a complex, exquisitely-tuned series of reactions.

So tenuous is the process that knighted astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle,8 who started his scientific career as a theological skeptic, was moved to write:9

“Would you not say to yourself, ‘Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule?’ Of course you would… A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

The Earth Platform

So now we have a universe with physical properties fine-tuned for life. But that does not guarantee that life will arise. We need a platform. We call it Earth. Just the right mass, to have just the right gravity, to hold just the right atmosphere with enough oxygen to allow combustion (i.e. the energy production), but not so much that there is spontaneous combustion of basic carbon molecules.

Then there is our tilted axis, allowing sunlight to be distributed over much more of the planet’s surface than if the axis were either vertical or horizontal. All at a distance from the sun that allows for liquid water; neither all ice (like on Mars) nor all steam (like on Venus).

Further, looking at the distribution of planets around the sun and realizing that the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is the debris that could be a planet but was unable to form due to the gravitational effects of the giant Jupiter, we discover that each planet is twice as far from the sun as the previous planet – except for one planet, Earth. Given the odds, there should not be a planet in this narrow habitable zone where Earth is. But here we are – just the right planet, at the just right location, etc., etc.

A smooth planet Earth would be totally covered by water miles deep.

Even with all this, human beings and all other life would not exist if not for yet another "chance" quirk of nature: The shifting of the crust that formed on the surface of the earth, as the once-molten planet cooled and produced continents that rise above sea level. If this shifting had not occurred (referred to as plate tectonics), continents would not have formed. It sounds benign, until we discover that had continents not formed and the earth remained relatively smooth, the amount of water in the oceans would cover the entire earth to a depth of 2.5 km [1.5 miles].

These are just a few of the many examples of what is known as the "anthropic principle." As renowned physicist Freeman Dyson stated, it's as if “the universe knew we were coming.”10

The Starting Point

The leads to what may be the biggest question: How did life start? No one knows as of yet. Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, attributed to luck the two most basic phenomena of life: the origin of life from non-living matter, and the origin of consciousness within that life that arose from non-living matter.11

Nobel laureate Francis Crick, who described his belief as agnostic with a prejudice toward atheism, struggled to account for the appearance of life on Earth:

“An honest man armed with all the knowledge available to us now could only state that in some sense the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”12

And yet for all its complexity, life started surprisingly rapidly on Earth. The oldest rocks that can bear fossils already have fossils of microbes, some undergoing cell division.13 The fact that the DNA genetic code, and the system for unlocking the information held within the code are identical across all life forms, indicates that when it was first derived, the system got it right.14

In addition, there is no evidence of evolutionary change or modification within the DNA,15 yet one might have expected an evolutional or developmental change for improvement or novelty over the “billions of years” that the system has been operating. Considering the other basic system of information storage and transfer – language and writing – we see vast and fundamental developmental changes over time and over location. Could an unguided nature have produced such genetic perfection in one burst?

Seeking an answer to the beginning of life,Nobel laureate Christian de Duve wrote:16

“If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one... The speed at which evolution started moving once it discovered the right track, so to speak, and the apparently auto-catalytic manner by which it accelerated are truly astonishing... [Yet] chance and chance alone did it all. But it is not, as some would have it, the whole answer, for chance did not operate in a vacuum. It operated in a universe governed by orderly laws and made of matter endowed with special properties. These laws and properties are the constraints that shape evolutionary roulette and restrict the numbers that can turn up...

“Faced with the enormous sum of lucky draws behind the success of the evolutionary game, one may legitimately wonder to what extent this success is actually written into the fabric of the universe.”

In other words, given that the universe seems so exquisitely designed for life, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the complex, hospitable universe is a result of an accident.

The late Nobel laureate George Wald, earlier in his career, emphatically stated that all life needed to get going was time and lucky random reactions. Yet based on his discoveries, Wald wrote:17

“It has occurred to me lately – I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities – that both questions [the origin of consciousness in humans and of life from non-living matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality – that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals. In them the universe begins to know itself.”

It is not just that the "laws of physics" are looking more and more like the design of a "mind"; physical reality itself is looking more and more like "ideas." As Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg wrote:18

“Inherent difficulties of the materialist theory of [existence] have appeared very clearly in the development of physics during the 20th century. This difficulty relates to the question whether the smallest units of matter such as atoms [of which we and all objects from bacteria to galaxies are composed] are ordinary physical objects, whether they exist in the same way as stones or flowers. Here quantum theory has created a complete change in the situation… The smallest units of matter are, in fact, not physical objects in the ordinary sense of the word; they are – in Plato’s sense – Ideas.”

So how do Hawking and others answer to the increasingly accepted view that everything we perceive is essentially an expression of a metaphysical mind? They agree it is extremely improbable that our complex, life-sustaining universe could be explained through random chance, but maybe there are an infinite number of universes and we just happened to be living in the lucky one. This answer is what is known as the "multi-universe theory."

I am embarrassed that such convoluted logic is printed in a scholarly journal.

It has even been proposed in the respected journal, Scientific American, that since our universe is so perfect, there logically must be other imperfect universes. Note the convoluted logic: our universe being perfect for life infers that there must be other non-perfect universes. Of course the perfection of our universe in no way implies the existence of other universes, whether perfect or non-perfect. And that is why, as a scientist, I am embarrassed that such convoluted logic could get printed in an established scholarly journal.

Bernard Carr, a cosmologist at Queen Mary University in London, concisely stated this "logic." As he put it, "If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse."19 In other words, if we are indeed the only universe, then we are a "designer" and a designed universe.

“Mind” as the fundamental quality of all existence, and “matter” as the expression of an idea that is written into the fabric of the universe – nowhere does this fit with Dr. Hawking’s portrait of an unguided nature. That God may have used the laws of nature to create the universe poses no theological problem. But all the evidence within the universe points to an ongoing involvement of the Creator with the creation brought into being.

In 1973, Edward Tryon, professor of physics, published an article in the prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Nature, describing the possibility of how the creation of the universe might be the result of what is termed in scientific jargon, a vacuum fluctuation (Tryon; "Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?" Nature, 246 (1973), pp. 396-397). The concept falls within well established principles of quantum mechanics. For persons interested in the details that make this a possibility, Tryon’s paper is the correct place to start. The physics is complex, but it is consistent with our understanding of nature.

In Hebrew, the name Elokim is synonymous with the word "din" which directly translates as "law" (See Rashi on Genesis 1:1). Even the name Elokim is interchangeable with the word “judge,” or one who enforces law and order (See Rashi on Genesis 6:2).

Genesis 1:1-31, 2:1-3.

Hawking’s most famous example is the concluding paragraph of A Brief History of Time: "However, if we discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable by everyone, not just by a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we should know the mind of God."

C.f., Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, part two, chapters 5, 6.

"The question is: was the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions." (Hawking, Channel 4 series, Genius of Britain, June 2010).

He was knighted for deriving the sequential formation of the 92 elements within the stellar processes.

The quarterly journal Engineering and Science, of the California Institute of Technology.

As quoted in Discover Magazine, "Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory.”

The God Delusion, p. 141.

Life Itself.

“The Oldest Fossils,” Scientific American.

Klug & Cummings, Essentials of Genetics.

Ibid.

And organic chemist and a leader in origin of life studies, in his book, Tour of a Living Cell.

Professor of Biology, Harvard University, earned the Nobel prize upon discovering the intricacy by which the retina processes incoming visual data in fractions of a second; writing in “Life and Mind in the Universe,” International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984.

One of the parents of all modern quantum mechanics, in his book, Physics and Beyond.

"Science's Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory,” Discover Magazine, December 2008.

Related Articles:

About the Author

Dr. Gerald Schroeder earned his BSc, MSc and double-Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics and Earth and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught physics for seven years. While a consultant at the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission he participated in the formulation of nuclear non-proliferation treaties with the former Soviet Union and witnessed the testing of six atomic bombs. He has served as a consultant to various governments worldwide and has been published in Time, Newsweek and Scientific American. He is the author of Genesis and the Big Bang, the discovery of harmony between modern science and the Bible, now in seven languages. He is also the author of The Science of God and The Hidden Face of God. Dr. Schroeder is currently a lecturer at Aish Jerusalem for the Discovery Seminar, Essentials program, Jerusalem Fellowships, and Executive Learning Center ― focusing on the topics of evolution, cosmology, and age of the universe.

Visitor Comments: 81

(76)
Richard-Rafael Joachim,
October 16, 2012 10:05 PM

Always a pleasure

It's always a pleasure to read your materail, Dr Gerald, you have the (G-D given) ability to cut through the clouds of nonsense and make things understandable for us lesser mortals. 'Elohim' is a very interesting title for the Divine, linguistically, as it combines masculine, feminine and common plural genders ('El' - masc. 'Oh' - fem. 'im' - common plural) thus alerting us to the understanding that G-D is not 'human' and neither masc. or fem. though by convention G-D is almost universally referred to as 'He'. Thank you for your life and works.

(75)
Rute Evora-Jauad,
September 3, 2012 10:47 PM

Mind Blown...

I am in awe of everything around me. Everything I will never get to see in my lifetime. This Universe- this perfect Universe- has got to have been created. If the Universe is expanding, can you imagine it beforehand? What is outside the Universe? In other words, where is our Universe?
Earth, our beautiful home was not even meant to be here. But "chance" made it possible?? Humans... the strongest beings of all, simply because our minds allow us...we we NEVER meant to be here. Never!! Not even once! Not even chance!! Survival of the fittest?!?! We die of colds even in our day and age, yet we managed to live through it all? CHANCE!??!
If only Stephen Hawking would spend less of his time disproving a Creator... a God. How different our world- our life- could be with God and Science together!! The beauty of what He made possible against all odds...
I'm in LOVE with the God who created Heaven and Earth. All the Stars, the planets... just completely and utterly mind blown! The Word. Oh the Word. All things created through Him. Without Him, nothing was made. If only non-believers could feel how I feel right now!! xxxx

(74)
Lois Homer,
May 20, 2012 5:19 PM

Fascinating Article

Very interesting but surprised to see this in your website, no complaint, I was glad to see it and loved reading it. I've watched Hawking specials on TV and I'm fascinated even though some of this goes over my head. We're just a speck of stardust in time. Will we ever find out if we're alone in the universe and are there other universes? I listen to radio shows on this subject or TV specials every time they are broadcasted. Thank you.

(73)
Glenn Muller,
March 30, 2012 1:34 PM

Infinity starts and ends in the same place!

Iam not a physicist, scientist or mathematician yet I am of the same origin the only difference is my comprehsion of the universe or what is perceived to be. A probable simple mathematical equation to me may appear to be incomprehesible, yet if explained adequatly I could possibly understand the same. If Einstein had the computers of 2012 he may have being even more brilliant, likewise if every human mind were combined to work as one, we may have a super computer. This may lead to comprhesion of our very consciousness. Time is said to travel in one direction only, what is that direction? where is the origin? So is time eternal? or is time and origin one? What is a miracle, it appears according to our observation "an event due to super-natural agency, act of supernatural power, remarkable event, wonderful specimen of some quality" . The problem is if I lived 150 years ago and saw some of what I see today, I too could describe a miracle in this way! I wonder what Newton may of thought or de vinci! because surely they would have being more objective and probably build on it rather than misuse the same! others may have misused the same after their fear had subsided. You may ask what is my point in all of this? I have no exact point! What I can say is I recently read Steven Hawkins "grand design" the most interesting thing is as I read some of it makes not much sense yet makes total sense, one thing is for sure this man must be quite intelligent, and I view him as a grand stepping stone. If only we could as humans could shed our predjudices, ego's and self we may be the better for it.

(72)
Nicola de Veredicis,
September 24, 2011 8:32 PM

A life story

I am an engineer, born in Italy, emigrated to South Africa 25 years ago. My wife was born in Latvia, studied in Italy, we met by chance at Rome university, then she came here where she found a job, then I came, I also found a job here, we got married, bought a house, we got children, we are settled and happy here.
If we look back, our current situation is due to an incredible amount of casual happenings. If she wouldn't come to study in Italy, we wouldn't be here. If I had not met her by chance in a street of Rome, we wouldn't be here. If she didn't have an uncle in S.A. we wouldn't be here. And so on. Hundreds of different causes conspired to us being here. And if only one of these causes, completely independent from each other, would not have materialized, we would not be here. Everything has conspired to obtain this final situation.
What if only one of these causes would have been missing? Well, perhaps I would be still in Italy, perhaps she would be somewhere else. Our children would have not been born. Different realities. The alternate universes.
You understand where I am getting to? This universe is our reality, life is based on carbon, man has evolved, etc.etc. WE only know this universe, this reality, and everything seems to have contributed to such a reality. But it could be different. Perhaps it IS different in millions of other universes. And where is God?

David,
December 20, 2011 8:32 PM

That is the point.

It seems to me that the issues of universes still begs the question about how any of these alternative universes started. Is that not just as unlikely?

Mike,
March 31, 2012 9:49 AM

Another wife

If you hadn't met this 'wife', you would have met another 'wife'. Chance is not even part of the equation of which you've described.

Anonymous,
May 1, 2013 4:45 AM

There are no chances and no coincidences with God. He is aware of every move you make and the Bible says every hair counted on your head.

Zev,
April 29, 2014 5:12 PM

Faulty Logic

Nicola, you elaborated several causes that ultimately led to your current circumstances. You then said 'it could have been different' and asked what if it all indeed did happen differently on some other universe/s. Does this sound like rational thinking to you? If I bump into a friend I haven't seen in years on a 'random' street in a foreign city, the odds would have been quite small. A rational reaction would be to marvel at the fact that something so unlikely just transpired. To throw up one's hands and conclude there just must be many parallel universes where this situation didn't happen is irrational thinking and borderline delusional.

(71)
buz whelan,
June 6, 2011 5:08 PM

Aquinas analogies

At points Dr. Schroeder sounds like Aquinas. There are so many missing pieces in our understanding of the forces that govern our universe that analogies just don't work. Our grasp of time, electromagnetism, gravity and nuclear forces is quite incomplete. We have no Grand Unifying Theory. Arguments about whether there is a guiding intelligence always come down to faith. We may as well speculate on what came before the Big Bang. At least at our present level of awareness, the basic nature of all is incomprehsible.

(70)
Mike Ettinger,
March 19, 2011 8:03 PM

Time

I only saw the film once, and being unprepared, was caught off gaurd by the beginning of the film. Perhaps I shouldn't respond with what I" thought" I heard until I view it again, and would less likely to prove myself a fool other than a keen observer...but caution was never my strong suit...so here goes.
I thought I heard something like this," in the first 10 seconds of creation the universe expanded 10 light years". My logic is this, if indeed i heard correctly. If the principle of the numbers are correct, time had not yet happened, therefore space was created before time and the vacumm of space sucked at the forming universe from within slowing it down to the speed of light. If indeed I heard incorrectly, If not then chuck this out the window...but if I am right, as the word says, he created time out of the void.

(69)
Bob Applebaum,
January 12, 2011 6:28 PM

Oil Illogical Argument P??

First you are redirecting the subject, which itself is a fallacy. The subect is a universe...you are shifting the subject to a collection of universes and giving that collection a name (multiverse). If I see 1 apple, and then say, "I suspect there are more apples, than the 1, because 1 is uniqe". I then find 11 more apples. I have then fulfilled my basis for assuming there is more than 1 apple. I NEVER said, "because I see a collection of apples, therefore there must be another similar collection of apples". It is the uniqueness of a single apple, which is the subject of my argument, not the uniqueness of a dozen of them (a collection). If we find there are other universes, than my argument has been satisfied, it stops. I have made no argument on the subject of collections of them, and I would not make one, because collections of things are not unique. Secondly, the redirecting from a single item to a collection, leads to the errorneous conclusion that there's never an end to anything. If I gather up all the apples in the world, would that mean there exists another "all the world's apples", just because I have a collection of that size already? That is preposterous, and no rational person (I include myself) would make such a claim.
Life has to arise, because the Universe embodies the laws it embodies. What happens has to happen....a dropped ball falls, it has no "choice". Likewise, certain atoms react to form molecules when preceding events caused them to be proximal. Those preceding events were also caused by something else which had to follow the laws of physics. Every peer reviewed science paper is based on this premise...all of science is based on this premise (except quantum mechanics, where it seems there is true randomness, though it may be misunderstanding on our part).

(68)
anon,
January 12, 2011 6:26 PM

to Bob Applebaum

you wrote:
>We have a pretty rough idea of how life began. It is based on facts and logical reasoning. If you can do better, get to work. Anyone can do nothing and be a critic.
This is like saying:
Mr A: I have theory X and we have a pretty rough idea, Y, of how it works
Mr B: In light of current scientific understanding, your "rough idea" is the wildest
conjecture and your theory is a most extroadinary leap of faith.
Mr A: If you can do better, get to work. Anyone can do nothing and be a critic.
Mr B's answer would be: If *you* choose to spend *your* time on such a thing
that's your preference, but why would I waste valuable time and resources on it,
when far, far, far more productive things can be done with them?

(67)
anon,
January 12, 2011 6:17 AM

to Bob Applebaum

you wrote:
Life HAS to exist in this Universe, because the Universe has the laws it has. It is not improbable, it is a necessary outcome.....probability = 100%
I just want to clarify what you're saying here.
Are you saying that life must arise? Or simply that this universe, with it's laws, will support life that is properly arranged?
[or something else?]
if the first, I would like to see the peer reviewed paper that demonstrates this. If the 2nd, I'm not sure what your point was.
Thankyou

(66)
anon,
January 12, 2011 5:48 AM

to Bob Applebaum

you wrote:
I don't conclude multiuniverses exist, only that one shouldn't conclude they do not. That is not an infinite regress. It would be if I asserted mutiple universes exist, but that is not what I'm saying.
One more time. You were applying your simple reason that you "expect" to find more than one. Because you know of no other thing that there is 1 of. You listed this as the first reason why you would expect more than 1 universe. Then why woulld you not apply the same reasoning when there was just 1 multiverse, 1 multi-multiverse etc. At which point would you arbitrarily decide it was ok to have just 1 of something? why isn't that an infinite regression?

(65)
Bob Applebaum,
January 9, 2011 7:14 PM

Old Illogical Arguments P?

@61 - no, it doesn't prove it would arise on its own. What is your point? Are you saying God arose on his own and created the universe? Just saying so, doesn't prove that God arose on his own. It doesn't even prove God exists. God is just superfulous. The Universe exists, we don't know what brought it about, there are infinite possiblities. God is only one of them, and the least likely, since God was the reason for sickness, volcano eruptions, etc, until we figured out the actual cause.
@62 - Multiuniverse - I don't conclude multiuniverses exist, only that one shouldn't conclude they do not. That is not an infinite regress. It would be if I asserted mutiple universes exist, but that is not what I'm saying.
@63 - We have a pretty rough idea of how life began. It is based on facts and logical reasoning. If you can do better, get to work. Anyone can do nothing and be a critic.

(64)
,
January 9, 2011 4:39 PM

to bob applebaum

you wrote:
You are quite wrong about not having the slightest conjecture about how life began
Very nice movies. I guess you're right, they DO have the *slightest* conjecture about how life began :)

(63)
,
January 9, 2011 4:33 PM

to bob applebaum

you wrote:
There are more than 1 planet, more than 1 solar system, more than 1 galaxy, etc. And a Universe is just a collection of these things. I expect to find more than one.
so, following this logic, they refer to more than 1 universe as a multiverse, a "collection" of universes; but, why should there be only 1 such collection; theres' more than 1 of everything else; so, how about a collection of those; call it the multi-multiverse; but, why only one of those? how bout a collection of them; call that ,the multi-multi-mutiverse; but why just one? how bout many; this starts to sound like an infinite regression; someone on this page suggests that such an approach would be logically fallacious. might even be a redutio indication there must be 1 of something? so, w/o evidence of the multi, that would really be conjecture; if there is real evidence, then perphaps it makes sense to follow evidence

(62)
,
January 9, 2011 4:25 PM

to bob applebaum

you wrote:
. Those laws have been unchanged since the Big Bang. The NDERLYING PREMISE is that if we know the initial circumstances under which life originated, we can replicate the process in the lab, because the laws of physics continue to hold. It is 100% inevitable, that if we get the initial circumstances right, life will arise
it's also 100% true that if we get all the right things in order, a building will exist; the building is also a physico-chemical reality, but that doesn't prove it would ever arise on its own

(61)
Bob Applebaum,
January 9, 2011 3:03 PM

Old Illogical Argument P10

@59 - Yes, matter is a state of energy. It's a distinction that matters (HA!). You can't just dismiss it, as though it does not. Light can't think. If you want to make up that it can, then you've just made that up.
@60 Two answers that I'm not uncomfortable with, nor avoiding in the least...1) Purpose - from a natural perspective your purpose is to increase entropy and reproduce. However, because you have conscious thought, you can define other purposes for yourself...to be a great artist, athlete or professional, help others, or be an embezzler, a mass murderer, or a thief, etc. From a religious perspective, the purpose is to serve a celestial dictator. Not only is that not true, but we should be glad it is not. 2) Bad things happen to good people because nature doesn't differentiate between good and bad people, people do. So good people get sick and die, suffer mental illness, etc.. Nature makes some people psychopaths. Their brains have been "wired" by chemical processes, that makes some people label them as "bad". It isn't their choice, any more than their eye color is their choice. You demonstrate great misunderstanding when you say "luck" repeatedly. The world exists due to the forces of physics. That's not random luck, It has to exist because those forces exist. There is a causal chain of events, starting with the Big Bang, and leading to today. True randomness is only seen at the quantum level. From a religious point of view, bad things happen to good people and the celestial dictator does nothing to intervene. That's not true, and we should rejoice that it is not.

(60)
David Stastny,
January 7, 2011 11:44 PM

what about justice?

Don't argue with atheists. They do not listen. They only ask many silly question avoiding two which are impossible for them to answer or make them uncomfortable to answer.
I believe in God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, who created the Heavens and the Earth. Thus the world has a purpose, and my life has a purpose. Here is the first question atheists are avoiding? "If the world happened to exist by luck, if your parents happened to make you by luck, does your live have a purpose?
Bad things happen. They happen to bad people, they happen to good people. We all accept the first part. Bad people deserve bad things. But what about the good people? Atheists do not have answer why bad things happen to good people. They just assume God is not just or God does not exist. However, every man has a deep sense in himself trying to convince him to hear the voice of God. Atheists do have this sense also. They just can't live with the assumption they need God that represents justice yet they can't explain why bad things happen to good people. They just don't want unjust God. Therefore they do not want God at all. This makes them feel must better (unless you give them the first question).

(59)
ayla5,
January 7, 2011 10:32 PM

G-d is light ≠ light is G-d

When I say that "G-d is light" it is not the same thing as saying that "Light is G-d". G-d exists outside of and is transcendent from what He has created, so you are right in saying that if he created it, he had to exist before it. I believe the light created on the first day is in the form of electromagnetic waves in the various wavelengths that we are currently aware of. I don't know what kind of light G-d himself is, but he does identify himself in those terms, and when you say he cannot think or act if he is light, consider that man is matter - really a compilation of various elements (mostly oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen) arranged together, and we think and act... we are sentient. Isn't matter a state of energy?

(58)
Bob Applebaum,
January 7, 2011 5:57 PM

Old Illogical Argument 9

@56 - I think you are confusing 2 related aspects of science...1) the laws of physics hold across the Universe, in time & space (true as far as we know). This is why science works. I do an experiment, and if I tell you the circumstances, you can replicate it two months later. We can use this to make predictions under similar or differing circumstances (if we understand the deviations from the original experiment). 2) Understanding the circumstances is not easy for an event in the distant past (that was not conducted in a lab), where no one was around to record it. But the laws of physics still held true. Life is the result of chemistry, which itself is the physics of forming electron bonds between atoms. Those laws have been unchanged since the Big Bang. The NDERLYING PREMISE is that if we know the initial circumstances under which life originated, we can replicate the process in the lab, because the laws of physics continue to hold. It is 100% inevitable, that if we get the initial circumstances right, life will arise. The problem is understanding those circumstances, which were in place over 3 billion years ago. It is our lack of understanding those circumstances which makes the quest tough. Even if someone initiates life in the lab, we won't know for certain, those were the exact same environmental circumstances under which life originated on Earth long ago. But scientists try to understand early environmental conditions as best as possible in order to give themselves the best chance of success of getting life in the lab. Once they get it, life will have to form, just like once one has enough electrostatic differential lightning has to form. You are quite wrong about not having the slightest conjecture about how life began, on the contrary. See the Movies (for an intro) here: http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/. Published work is also listed.
@57 - LHC is best tool at the moment.
Thank you!

(57)
,
January 6, 2011 7:05 PM

to Bob Applebaum:
you wrote:
>but I have plenty of reasons for concluding it's quite >possible, the simplest being I know not of one of >anything. There are more than 1 planet, more than 1 >solar system, more than 1 galaxy, etc. And a Universe i>s just a collection of these things. I expect to find >more than one. Other reasons have to do >with .symmetry...the total energy of our universe is >zero (neg & pos cancel out). Yet there is no symmetry of time or antimatter/matter. To achieve symmetry >would require another universe where time moves >backwords and there is more anitmatter than matter. >Now, nothing says we have to have symmetry, but it is >so common, that it is a reasonable expectation
lots of interesting speculation here. how would you suggest these be tested if other universes are not observable?
thank you

(56)
anon,
January 6, 2011 6:18 PM

bob applebaum:
you wrote:
> Life HAS to exist in this Universe, because the Universe >has the laws it has. It is not improbable, it is a necessary >outcome.....probability = 100%. Just like it is 100% >certain that lightning will arise under certain atmospheric >conditions
Can you provide sources to any peer reviewed literature at all that remotely suggests this? Currently science hasn't got the remotest conjectures/speculations about how life came to exist. 2 leading scientists that worked this problem, with differing approaches, can make long lists of problems with both their own and the others, (orgel and shapiro). Never heard of either of them making any suggestions like this.
Thank you for your participation

(55)
Bob Applebaum,
January 4, 2011 10:11 PM

Old Illogical Argument 8

@53 - According to Genesis, light was created by God, after the Earth. So God is not light. But even if you insist so, light cannot think or act independently. Light can't dictate the 10 Commandments. I also don't think you want to posit that every time I flick a light switch, I'm creating God.
Many other cultures worshipped the Sun as God, since its light provides life on Earth. The early Christians chose Christmas at the Winter solstice (when days start to get longer), because they were trying to convert pagans to Christianity.. But the Sun is just a ball of gas. It doesn't think, either.

(54)
ayla5,
January 4, 2011 5:25 PM

Light is energy

@ Mr. Applebaum: you say in comment #43 "I don't need evidence of God....just provide evidence of anything that thinks and creates without being made of energy or matter? " Read through the Bible and take note of how many references there are to G-d as light.

(53)
Bob Applebaum,
January 4, 2011 5:12 PM

Old Illogical Argument P7

Yosef - you are employing many fallacies. It is NOT a leap of faith to say something is possible, when the evidence indicates it is. I DO NOT say I know for certain there are many universes (which would be a leap of faith), but I have plenty of reasons for concluding it's quite possible, the simplest being I know not of one of anything. There are more than 1 planet, more than 1 solar system, more than 1 galaxy, etc. And a Universe is just a collection of these things. I expect to find more than one. Other reasons have to do with symmetry...the total energy of our universe is zero (neg & pos cancel out). Yet there is no symmetry of time or antimatter/matter. To achieve symmetry would require another universe where time moves backwords and there is more anitmatter than matter. Now, nothing says we have to have symmetry, but it is so common, that it is a reasonable expectation. So, my reasons have nothing to do with life. Life HAS to exist in this Universe, because the Universe has the laws it has. It is not improbable, it is a necessary outcome.....probability = 100%. Just like it is 100% certain that lightning will arise under certain atmospheric conditions. A flipped coin MUST land on whatever it lands on. We say there's a 50-50 chance, because we don't understand how to apply the laws of physics with great accuracy to the coin toss. If we did, we wouldn't say 50-50, we'd know certainly...just like we know certainly a dropped coin falls and doesn't rise. It's not 50-50.

(52)
Yosef,
January 4, 2011 5:49 AM

many universes, Bob?

Bob, just an observation: don't you think that your claiming there might be many universes (which to my understanding you mean to suggest that this would increase the improbable odds of life developing in one universe to a nearly inevitable occurrence given enough universes) is a bit of a leap of faith? (I look forward to posting my response to the entropy discussion once I find the time to articulate it)

(51)
Leslie,
January 3, 2011 7:49 AM

The luck of puddles

If we lived in a puddle we would wonder at the *perfect* and improbable nature that created the indentation. So the = God or that equals a creator??????
NO! If anything he mentions is different then WE would be different.
Our universe is not perfect for life!
On 1 speck of dust, in an unremarkable galaxy (1 of millions) there is us.
IF the universe was designed for life, it's a very shoddy design.
Life is perfect for this universe, for this 1 speck of dust.

(50)
applebaumr@bellsouth.net,
January 1, 2011 10:23 PM

Old Illogical Argument P6

#44 - "fine tuning" is relative...the Universe is 75% dark energy, 20% dark matter, and 5% normal matter. We are one planet of the 5%....a very small fraction. Humans can only live on a very small spherical shell about the earth. That is fine tuning? Then consider time...Universe is 14 billion years old, humans a few hundred thousand years old. That's fine tuning? And the Universe is ripping itself apart...that's fine tuning?
It is a fallacy to say that the Universe "looks designed". To differeniate what is or is not designed we compare something within the Universe, to the Universe itself. You can't say the Universe looks designed and undesigned! And of course, you've ignored the infinite regress of designers, I originally pointed out.
#45 - Regarding probabilities...it is meaningless. You have to know the number of possible states in order to predict the probablility of a particular state. You know the odds of a die falling on a particular side is 1/6, because you fully see the die. We only see one Universe and don't know how many there are or have been.

(49)
ahmed alireza,
January 1, 2011 4:04 AM

gods glory

is such that we see it all infront of our very own eyes and yet refuse to believe it or have doubts about about the greatness of the comprehension of reality......i too struggle with the concept of god but at the end i had to seccumb to the hard realities that all this is just too neat to have come by chance......it would need a hell of a lot more than 13 billion light years time.......so god must have cooked it all up putting all the pieces together in another dimension that no eye has seen nor a mind can concieve or comprehend.....then he said let it be.......then the big bang.....now i am not confused anymore as i have reached this conclusion and have put this subject behind my back and get on with my life.....i advise the rest to do the same......conclusion......god is the creator....

(48)
Bob Applebaum,
December 31, 2010 2:47 PM

Old Illogical Argument P6

#44 & #45 - I appreciate your point but I very strongly disagree. Whether 2 2=67 or 5 could certainly be debated, but it is not worthy of it. Likewise for whether or not the Earth is flat or spherical. Likewise for a reproduction debate - stork theory .vs. sexual.
If you were walking and stumbled upon Mt. Rushmore (and let's say you'd never seen it), you would infer it was designed because you would compare it to the natural background and see its uniqueness and human underpinnings. With the Universe there is NO background to compare to. It is the background upon which we infer whether something within it appears to be designed (and sometimes we can be fooled as in crop circles). An argument from design is meaningless. It also leads to an infinite regress as in my original point. If the Universe looks designed, so therefore a designer exists, then designer also looks designed, and to be logically consistent you must infer another desiger. This is dead-end thinking. Just like #47's, God-of-the-Gaps argument.
You employ a similar fallacy in your response to J. Harris. In order to calculate a probability, you have to know the initial possible states, We know a die has 6 sides, so that the probablility of one side landing up is 1/6. We do not know how many Universes are possible. Discussing probabilities is meaningless.
The "fine tuning" argument lacks a proper perspective. <5% of the Universe is normal matter, the rest is dark matter & dark energy. Of that <5%, there is only life on one planet (as far as we know). And human life can only exist within a small spherical shell (not too deep, not to high) on it. Then add the time dimension...the Universe is about 14 billion years old, humans only a few hundred thousand years old. All the while, the Universe is busy tearing itself apart. If you call that fine tuning, I hope you are not a musician.

(47)
Fernando Yaakov Lalana,
December 31, 2010 7:04 AM

The problem with the universe

Often enough, it is a waste of time trying to prove that their is a Divinity behind the unexplainable aspects of our existence. What was long thought to be the actions of spirits or demons are now recognized to be plain physics or chemistry. There is still a tendency to assume a divine explanation for the mysteries we experience every day. As a long-time medical investigator, I have faced realities that have had to be studied with lots of critical thinking. Everybody (well, at least many people) know by now that epilepsy is not caused by evil spirits. But I am aware of other "religious groups" that still carry out exorcism on these poor misdiagnosed individuals. As one starts talking about creation and the universe, one is faced with still unexplored realms. So, deeply "religious" individuals will invoke G-d, while others will say "physics." But that does not mean that each are mutually exclusive. One does not have to be a Torah scholar to understand that Creation is still a baffling phenomenon, in spite of all the inter-planetary and astrophysics investigators' discoveries. Of course there's physics. But the "Divine" is extremely difficult to document. It's just not within our reach, well, as of today at least. So, one has to come to grips with reality. And this creates conflict, whether personal or social. To quote books, theologians or physicists to defend one's opinion is endless and futile. We still have to live with lots of uncertainty. And for many it is unsettling. But the Torah must still be held in more authority than any physics textbook. That is not to say that Torah is a physics manual either. It encompasses more than Carbon dating, the Large Hadron Collider and Petri dishes. And definitely, life and the universe are more than that. And for those who don't know G-d or Torah, well, start investigating seriously, without any bias pro or con. Because Life is more than we can see with our finite minds.

(46)
Noach,
December 30, 2010 11:11 PM

Tie-in to this week's parsha, Va'eira

I don't know if Aish's editor intentionally published this article during the week of Parshas Va'eira, or if the timing was Divine Providence, but the Elokim/Hashem discussion at the top ties in very nicely to this week's M'Oray Ha'Aish article @ http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48910232.html

(45)
anon,
December 30, 2010 7:45 PM

to Joseph Harris, Phd; maybe not?

to Joseph Harris, Phd
you wrote:
>Since we are here, asking the question after the fact,
>is as mathematically flawed as asking the odds of one's birth.
Perhaps they're not exactly the same?
The odds of a given individual's birth may be fantastically unlikely, as you
state. But, given a system, already existing, that
has life, and reproduction, and human dynamics, the odds
of ANY birth might not be so far fetched.
But, here, starting from a "big bang", physicists
tell us the universe could have "evolved" in
virtually ANY of an infinite number of ways, the overwhelming
vast majority of which would not have resulted in
any universe that could support life as we know it.
[Then there's a very similar issue for how life itself
would start, and come to the point where there are humans
to begin with.]
There was an article in the NY Times a few years
ago entitled (something like) Billions and Billions
of Universes, and it was about a gathering of
physicists who (were openly embarrased that they
had to admit) that that is currently
the best hope of an explanaion of the fact that
we have the universe we live in.

(44)
anon,
December 30, 2010 7:30 PM

To Bob Applebaum

you wrote:
>When we look at the only universe we can see, we have NO evidence it was designed. It looks undesigned
The anthropic principal suggests that there is "fine tuning" in the universe, a set of measurable constants
that suggest that the universe, as we know it, and life, could not exist unless these values were within very small tolerances of the values as they are.
There are those who, based on that, suggest the universe may in fact be the product of design.
Your statement that it "looks undesigned" is an opinion you're entitled to, but the subject is certainly open to debate.

(43)
Bob Applebaum,
December 30, 2010 3:06 PM

Old Illogical Argument P5

#40 - Sorry, but I humble myself and do the hard work of understanding the evidence. You declared by fiat that I am arrogant. I never said I understand everything, What possesses you to lie about me and then insult me based on that lie? Please see ad hominem.
#38 - look up "teleological fallacy". Understand that children when asked a question like, "what is the purpose of a tree?", will answer something like "for birds to live in". With a full understanding of biology, we know that is overally simplistic and wrong. You are proffering the same overally simplistic and wrong thinking regarding the Universe, rather than the tree.
#39 - yes, you can contort any set of facts to fit any story. When you sit in Wyoming and hear the sound of hoofs on the ground, it could be horses, zebras or unicorns. Which is the most likely? Which is the least likely? I would be troubled by someone who said "unicorns" and stuck with that answer no matter how much evidence showed "horses". Clearly, the emotional need to believe has overcome the intellectual ability to think objectively and rationally.
Taken even by itself the fusion of Chromosome 2 is strong evidence of evolution. Combined with the other facts I provided and thousands more I didn't, the only rational conclusion is human evolution by natural selection. And you say you studied biology....how does anything think or create without being made of matter? I don't need evidence of God....just provide evidence of anything that thinks and creates without being made of energy or matter? I have trillions of pieces of evidence which shows that only things made of energy or matter can think or create. How are these things accomplished (what are the mechanisms) by something not made of energy/matter? You proffer an invisible being using any undescribable mechanism to accomplish something. Sounds like a unicorn.

(42)
Moshe,
December 30, 2010 10:21 AM

Didn't Roger Penrose State that Hawkins Ideas Aren't Even a Theory?

While I enjoyed this article and found it very interesting, I just wonder about giving so much credit to Hawkings ideas. In this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dg_95wZZFr4) Roger Penrose states that Hawkings ideas (I believe he is talking about M-Theory) aren't even theories, but rather hopes and aspirations of where he thinks or would like science to go.
In other words, how well founded (scientifically speaking) is the notion that the universe began by means of quantum vacuum fluctuations?

(41)
David K,
December 29, 2010 9:57 PM

I have to shovel the snow

In the end, I still have to go home and shovel. However, I will also make a bracha and eat a kosher meal too. And then play some music.

(40)
Anonymous,
December 29, 2010 9:10 PM

To Bob and the others like him

The arrogance of man who thinks he can explain everything, all because another human being explained it to him. Even a super intelligent one like Hawking or Einstein, is still a finite human being with a finite brain. A more humble approach would be needed to see G-d, but humbleness is not given by birth and people who think they can explain everything by rule can't be humble enough to see G-d.

(39)
ayla5,
December 29, 2010 8:16 PM

No reason to assume common descent

@Bob Applebaum: I have argued with enough atheists to know that trying to convince you is most likely an exercise in futility, so I am responding more for the others reading this forum than with any real hope you will see that evolution is not the only explanation for the fusion at chromosome 2. I understand that in your case, where you are entering the discussion with the mindset that evolution is a certainty and that man and apes descended from a common ancestor, you are bound to see the fusion of chromosome 2 as supportive of your preconceived theory. But it need not be. It looks like chromosome 2 is a fusion of two chromosomes, and as you say, apes have 48, where humans have 46. But when did this fusion occur? We cannot say, neither camp - the evolutionists or the creationists - can know at what point in our history this event took place. We who acknowledge a Creator see the creation of man as a singular event, perhaps initially with 48 chromosomes, and then for a reason known only to G-d (at this time - we may discover more as time passes) - the fusion event transformed the 48 to 46 and all of man is descended from this ancestor (Noah - adapting to life in a post-Flood world?) in which the fusion occurred. Neither can one say that because similarities exist between the genes and structure of apes and man, that that proves a common ancestor - we who believe in creation see that the Creator used an efficient method of transferring information that pleased Him, just as the general template for cars is basically the same. It isn't difficult to understand why the Creator would reuse a design, we who are created in His image do it all the time.

(38)
Avrohom Tikotzky,
December 29, 2010 5:11 PM

Rabbi Avigdor Millers Answer

We send out a weekly email featuring a Q&A from Rav Avigdor Millers Thursday night lectures, and found it quite interesting that this weeks Q&A is on this topic. Below is the text of this weeks email.
Question - What do you do when someone asks, who created Hashem?
Answer - And the answer is, if a person is an atheist, Chas V'sholom, then ask him, does somebody have to create matter? Atheists believe that matter existed always. Something happened before matter; alright, but it was something that turned into matter. Energy turned into matter, it didn't come from nothing, everybody admits that. So just as the atheist is privileged to believe that matter always had some form of existence, so L'havdil we have the same privilege, and Hashem always had some form of existence. Which means, there always has to be a beginning, you cannot begin from non-beginning, and therefore the beginning of everything is Hashem and He always was.
The fact that we cannot say who created Hashem is not a question, it's a fallacy in words, but just a contradiction, a sophism that's meaningless. Hashem is always there and it was not necessary to create Him.
Now when some careless Maamin, some person who’s off guard and wants to convince an atheist, says who created this? And the other man counters, who created Hashem? And so he's stymied. But it's all a foolish exchange, we are not saying who created this, we say, when we see something that's cunning and something demonstrates Plan and Purpose, we say, how can plan and purpose be without a designer? That has no answer, nobody can refute that question.
How is it that things can reproduce, nobody can answer that. Reproduction is the result of a design, it's a machinery that's capable of duplicating itself, and therefore this question has no answer. So don't ask who created IT, that doesn't mean anything, say doesn't this demonstrate Plan and Purpose.
To sign up for the weekly email Click Here

(37)
Bob Applebaum,
December 29, 2010 2:57 PM

Old Illogical Argument P4

#36 - Yes, those facts do. I'll only dwelve on one example due to space. The other Great Apes have 24 sets of chromosomes (48 total). Humans have 23 sets (46 total). This is very odd and would seem to show that we could NOT share a common ancestor with the other Great Apes. However, upon further examination we find that human chromosome 2 is actually a fusion of 2 chromosomes. So either the Creator couldn't make a chromosome 2 like the rest, or chose to make it look like it evolved in order to intentionally fool us...or we have evolved from a common ancestor along with other Great Apes and (a) mutation(s) caused the chromosomes to fuse over time.
#35 - I will try to explain in limited space. In a CLOSED system, entropy cannot decrease with time. Pure, high energy is the LOWEST form of entropy. In the Big Bang, entropy was AT ITS LOWEST and has continued to increase since, considering the Universe as a closed system. However, within the Universe, there can be local areas of low entropy as long as overall the Universe's entropy does not decrease. The Sun is a local area of low entropy which has self-assembled under gravity. Earth is an OPEN system within the Universe. It receives energy from the Sun and radiates some of it back to space. The Sun's energy is at a relatively low entropy. Now, what does life do? Life takes the Sun's energy input and breaks it down! Life HASTENS entropy increase overall, even though a living thing is a package of low entropy. If there were no life on Earth, the Sun's energy would not be degraded as quickly (increasing entropy) as is done with life. This is why you can make your bed (very, very local decreasing entropy)....but you expend energy to do so and overall entropy increases. Shalom.

(36)
ayla5,
December 29, 2010 6:44 AM

More than one explanation

@#32 Bob Applebaum: In your enthusiasm to share your atheism, you are taking evidence farther than it points. None of the "facts" you offer in response to my post need be attributed to evolutionary theory. Care must be taken to acknowledge that other theories (a Creator) are equally fit to explain the evidence you cite.

(35)
yosef,
December 29, 2010 4:01 AM

question for Bob, (and anyone else)

I have yet to get an answer on this: the 2nd law of thermodynamics states (in a simplified nutshell): statistically, an ordered state tends to break down into a random chaotic state. [i.e: for 10 coins, the "ordered" state is 10 heads or 10 tails - which has only one configuration each, but the random state tends to be 5 heads, 5 tails, which has 252 configurations. Applying this in basic chemistry: for a cube of sugar put into water, the molecules in the cube of sugar are 1 ordered configuration, while there are trillions upon trillions of ways to distribute the sugar molecules across the glass of water molecules - as a result, given some time, it is a statistical eventuality that the sugar will "dissolve" in water because that (the random state), is the most likely configuration of molecules.] Now, applying this principle to creation: we know the universe began from a state of relative chaos, and now there exist complex life forms (ordered molecular systems, which evolutionary theorists claim are continuing to become more and more complex [read: ordered]). Apparently, life on earth is a contradiction to a fundamental law of nature, explained above. How do we possible go further in rationalizing that life (complex orderly systems) just "evolved" from randomness without a Creator. It's as if a tornado rips through a junkyard and assembles a 747....even trillions upon trillions of tornadoes couldn't accomplish that - because the probability of attaining that order (a 747) is so much less than the probability of disorder (a junkyard). And one cell is MUCH more complex.

(34)
Harry I Kuperschmidt,
December 29, 2010 12:18 AM

Keep it simple

Dear Dr. Schroeder:
I was once an atheist. Today when I meet someone who is an atheist or agnostic ( a wishy washy afraid to be atheist) I share a simple insight that came to me after I came in contact with God and never doubted again.
If you were part of an exploration team traveling thorugh uncharted jungle and came upon the ruins of an ancient city - looking all around this city with it's buildings and streets, you would naturally conclude, "Someone built this place." And you would be right.
To the atheist I suggest, "Look in the mirror." Can there be a more complex "building?"
It is frightening to acknlowledge the existence of God, very frightening. I believe people like Stephen Hawking may be too "frightened." He says that he does not say there is no God, just that God is not really needed for creation; all that is needed are these laws of nature - these impersonal laws of nature. Perhaps Stephen Hawking cannot face that God in not impersonal.
What might he have to concede if God was personal?
What do we concede as Jews when we accept there is an almighty perfectly good God who existed as the Holocaust unfolded.
I believe God is and is perfectly good. I accept I am too young in his evolutionary miracle to understand "why?"
But today I accept God's goodness even though I don't like wat happens around us in the world, and I work toward his will for us: To be like him.
Dr. Hawking does not care to see this.

(33)
,
December 28, 2010 5:02 PM

Brilliant Article - Where did Mr Hawking get his mind, Chance?

To quote a wise man, "Interesting article. The idea that "chance" could create the universe or life is about as unscientific and foolish as anything could be, no matter how many formulas they come up with or how they try to rationalize it."

(32)
Bob Applebaum,
December 28, 2010 3:09 PM

Old Illogical Argument P3

Thank you for engaging in discussion. I will try to address the many points. First, I assume we all want to be rational. "Rational" means to ratio your belief in accordance with the evidence and/or logic. Irrational is the opposite.
#24 - No. I challenge you to take a small box and completely empty it (no air, no energy, no cosmic rays, etc.). This is impossible, because if and when you do, virtual particles (you'll have to Google, no space to explain) arise. In other words, the state of nothing is unstable. The state of nothing creates, just like the state of something decays.
#26 - the computer analogy is inappropriate. We don't look at a computer to infer it was designed. We have evidence it was designed (we know the manufacturer, we can go to the plant, etc.). When we look at the only universe we can see, we have NO evidence it was designed. It looks undesigned. We see stars forming, stars blowing up, galaxies racing towards each other, volcanoes, death, etc. Perhaps it was designed to look undesigned. Or, perhaps it is simply not designed.
#29 - if you are truly a biologist then you surely recognize the viral DNA incorporated into our own DNA, you surely recognize that humans have more bacterial cells than human cells, and you surely understand the implications of the fusion of human chromosome 2., Or are these facts, facts that you don't need to know?
#28 - yes, in addition to the fallacious Argument From Design, also employed is the fallacious God-of-the-Gaps. Where we don't understand something, insert "goddidit". And then when we do understand it, remove "goddidit".
Please be rational carefully. Shalom.

(31)
David,
December 28, 2010 1:36 PM

Silly arguments

"I am embarrassed that such convoluted logic is printed in a scholarly journal."
And I'm embarrassed that such convoluted logic is printed on a Jewish website. First, physical laws are conflated with God. Then, Schroeder falls back on the "what are the chances" argument, However, assuming that the odds of life are very low, so what? In an entire universe, we don't know of any other examples besides ourselves. Most of the universe is empty, and it goes on for billions of light years in any direction you please. But Schroeder is convinced that the whole show was cooked up just so a friendly God could establish the Jewish people in a small spot on planet Earth. Hawking's ideas might sound far-fetched, but they don't sound that far-fetched.

(30)
Andy,
December 28, 2010 12:40 PM

Views expressed such as given by #27 Joe seem to be not those of the author of the article. Those comments result in misleading many re what constitues a true Torah view

Seems to me that most all religions think they have the truth and many of the well intentioned "faithful" like #27 Joe may feel threatened by science and hold steadfastly to their beliefs despite any evidence to the contrary. If I am reading this article correctly Dr Schroeder is not one of those deniers. He never states that evolution is false. I believe he will confirm that human life may well have evolved from simpler forms and believing that our ancestors are indeed monkeys does not deny God or Torah.His view seems to be that it is not random and that there is God who orchestrates the continuing process of creation. Maybe he can confirm this to shed some light Maybe I'm mistaken.

(29)
ayla5,
December 28, 2010 7:42 AM

Design infers a designer

As a biologist, I see the proof of G-d's hand in the digitally coded information in DNA and the ever unfolding knowledge of the complex workings of the cell. I may like to know, but do not need to know, how G-d did it in order to know that he did. If one comes across intricately decorated shards of pottery in an ancient field, one does not assume that random blowing sand or rain was responsible, one sees design and assumes a designer. One doesn't need to know everything about that designer to know he nonetheless exists and was the cause of the pottery. One can infer much about the designer from studying his work.

(28)
Emery Emery,
December 28, 2010 5:41 AM

You're logic is circular and ignores the infinite regress.

Invoking God to explain the laws of nature completely ignores the need to explain how God was created. This problem is always ignored by the religious and the fact is simple, God creates more questions than he answers and in truth, is not needed to explain anything at all.
We have been using God to explain the aspects of nature that allude us, but we know so much now that we just don't need the Gods we invent anymore.

(27)
Joe,
December 28, 2010 2:23 AM

Submission

What all these scientists have in common, even the contemporary ones, is that they lack the ability or willingness to accept the eternal words of the Torah. All must be proven. Not surprisingly, Hashem has led them with their haughty findings to believe that brilliant and holy minds are the product of a fictitious big bang and mindless monkeys. My rebbi in yeshivah said it best, "It is not we who are the believers and they are not. Rather we are the non-believers and they the heretics are the believers....We dismiss all the scientific theories and steadfastly hold on to our ancient faith, while they believe EVERY stupid and illogical theory postulated by every angry scientist who has an agenda to settle with God."
No wonder my rabbis discouraged us from delving too deeply in the morass of science.

(26)
izz,
December 27, 2010 11:51 PM

Bob - with all due respect

One must be honest - if the universe is not proven designed neither is a computer. The same "infinite recursion" issue arrises there.
Stop being such a philosipher - be honest. The human mind is beyond any machine the greatest scientists have ever built ... please get real.
Don't complicate something so self-evident and clear.
G-D bless,

(25)
Dvirah,
December 27, 2010 8:49 PM

Just for the Fun of It

What if G-d created many universes with different types of life in them?

(24)
David McCoy,
December 27, 2010 7:40 PM

Your reply?

Bob at #22, you address your comment to Susan, but you don't truly answer her comment, i.e., if the laws of nature [or any other cause] created the universe, must they not, of necessity, exist outside the universe?

(23)
yuriy,
December 27, 2010 7:06 PM

Bob is somewhat on point

The argument presented in this article and other like it only make questioning people question the writer and the writer's thesis.
We truly need another approach. Arguing that G_d is the ever-present, the most simple, the this-n-that is getting us nowhere...
I don't pretend to have an answer, but we need to start thinking about that and not physics. Worshiping the G_d of cosmology is stupid, counterproductive and certainly doesn't make someone Jewish...
If we want to convince (not convert) thinking people to the Truth we truly need to get out of these simplistic explanations which can be argued against.
Look.
There is no way you can explain a reason for a PERSONAL G_d in this way.
You can tell someone that a designer MAY be needed, but that doesn't answer the questions of: Why be kosher? Why keep the Sabbath? Why does G_d care about our daily lives?

(22)
Bob Applebaum,
December 27, 2010 2:39 PM

Old Illogical Arguments Part 2

I see many people responded to my #8, with more logically fallacious arguments. Basically, the Argument From Vagueness...God is simplicity or so vague as to be unknown..
First to #11, Susan...Schroeder says a lot of stuff, partly to intentionally confuse. He did say this:
"It is not just that the "laws of physics" are looking more and more like the design of a "mind"; physical reality itself is looking more and more like "ideas." As Nobel laureate Werner Heisenberg wrote".
So he is very clearly he is engaging in an Argument from Design, which is logically fallacious.
He makes other fallacious argurments, like with this statement:
"Of course the perfection of our universe in no way implies the existence of other universes, whether perfect or non-perfect."
What makes our universe perfect? If it is the only universe, there is nothing to compare it to. If there are others, we don't know enough about them to say ours is perfect.
Back to the fallacious Arguments From Vagueness....a very vague or simple God would not hear prayers or perform miracles or create universe(s). That sort of god is not a thinking god. To think requires sensory input and some type of neural-like network. To be able to act on thoughts requires complexity.
#20 says such a God cannot be comprehended. If true, then you don't know if he still exists, if there are twenty of them, what he/they want, etc. It's like saying thootery (I made that up) can't be comprehendend. Ok, well then, I'll get on with my life, and not give it another thought.

(21)
Arthur Gillman,
December 27, 2010 11:46 AM

Self-Referencing Logic (Hypersets)

I am surprised that no commentator here has mentioned Hypersets. This modern math development is nearly 100 years old now, and provably valid, scientific, "kosher". It easily suffices to explain G_d (in ways that Aristotle's logic simply could not). But it still awaits the arrival of a populariser, to make it more widely known. (See the work of Einstein's friend, Kurt Godel; and Peter Aczel ... for starters,) Gerald Schroeder, read your math journals!

(20)
EGE,
December 27, 2010 2:51 AM

To Bob A.; #8

Bob,
Your logic succumbs to the fallacy of "creating G-d in Man's image". Man cannot comprehend the idea of a completely non-physical and eternal being - yet that is what G-d is. G-d exists outside of space and time - in fact, a central concept of the discipline of Kabbalah is that G-d had to "retract" (tzimtzum) a part of Himself to create the physical universe.
I am not a scholar of Kabbalah, nor any kind of expert; nor do I forsee the practical possibility that I can become one, so I just accept that there are some things my mind will not be able to understand and explain. There were precious few people in history who were able to comprehend G-d's mysteries, so I don't feel too left out that I am not one of them.

(19)
Adam,
December 27, 2010 2:41 AM

God is not the laws of nature

Not that the Creator needs my defense, but there is a fundamental error in reasoning that the laws of nature = God. This can be construed as pagan. God is not bound by any physical law, abstraction or time. He created all natural law (even the quantum vacuum fluctuation) and is ontologically prior to all such laws and time. This is the ABC of monotheism.

(18)
Anonymous,
December 27, 2010 2:27 AM

logical flaw

Bob Appelbaum writes: "This is just a rehashed, Argument From Design, which is logically fallacious. If the laws of nature and its complexity are used as evidence for the existence of a designer (God), then God is even more complex."
It seems that you have some logically fallacious thinking yourself, Bob. God is ultimately simple.

(17)
Refael Holtzberg,
December 27, 2010 1:14 AM

To Number 8

The point you touched on is exactly the most important tenant of Judaism which we recite each morning and night - the belief in the total Unity of God. Our Father Abraham realized that God must be Indivisible - what is known as "achdut pashut" Simple Oness. No need for design. So, in essense you are only arguing against idolatry (or maybe against certain Christian notions).

(16)
Anonymous,
December 27, 2010 1:07 AM

If the universe is was created pursuant to the laws of nature, it was done with miraculous speed and is miraculously well-done. However, if it was created by God, the question is why is it so imperfect?

Noa (Zelophehad Daughter),
June 19, 2011 5:22 PM

Chirstian answer = Jewish answer

I am a convert to Judaism from Christianism. I made the same question that you wrote to a pastor and a rabbi and I received the same amount of "light". The universe it is not imperfect, it is you that is imperfect so you see whatever is inside you: imperfection. You need to search for perfection ( God) and improve yourself, so only then you will understand the perfection of the universe.
I do not know if it says something to you. It did not make a lot for me.

(15)
Bea,
December 27, 2010 12:02 AM

The fact that G-d exists does not mean that He was "created"; the fact that G-d could create the universe and everything in it (not just the world) and all its laws proves that G-d does not live by our laws. He is a totally different type of Being, which we can never understand.

(14)
ruth housman,
December 26, 2010 11:47 PM

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking is an exceptionally smart man, and he has written books that are being read around the world. Hawk as in his name, are exceptionally great at many things, and they have acute vision and also are called birds of prey. As to Stephen, I think of Stephen Dedalus, in Portrait of the Artist. There is this element of creativity in science and poetry in Stephen Hawking's work.
He has suffered and he has suffered mightily. I think when Stephen stands before God, and I do hope he does, because he has been wheel-chair bound for too too long, well I hope that God embraces him and thanks him for a good job, because we do need our atheists. We need everyone and God too, created atheists, and such a man. I respect Stephen Hawking because he has taught me deep lessons in what man is able to do, how we can soar, even when we are so sorely tried, in life. There is a song that has a refrain that goes, King of Pain.
We are all children of the same G_d and as such part of a story that is Divine, and to divine this, perhaps takes a particular journey of soul.

(13)
Ron Habinski,
December 26, 2010 10:39 PM

an excellent distillation of scientific evidence from a theistic perspective

The shortcomings of the materialistic evolutionary perspective are not well known and certainly not fairly examined in our public and post secondary schools. This synthesis of scientific evidence supportive of a theistic position deserves a wide airing, but, given the prejudices of liberal secular culture, this is unlikely to happen.

(12)
M. Dovdovan,
December 26, 2010 8:48 PM

nice article

Very nice article. There is a photographic research project (www.astrofaces.com) that seeks to demonstrate that astrology with its four elements and twelve dimensions describes the shape of time and is actually the schematic of the universe, the cosmology, the theory of everything. If there is a shape to time itself, that shows that the universe isn't accidental or random. See the Abstract at the site. Metaphysics is being drawn closer to the 'mainstream' of scientific thought. At some point, scientists will renounce Reductionist Materialism and then religious people will become more comfortable with science. Our collective knowledge will be more integrated which will be a good thing for social harmony.

(11)
Susan,
December 26, 2010 8:39 PM

Question for Bob Applebaum

Dr. Schroeder's argument, as I understand it, does not state that because the laws of nature are complex they necessitate a creator. Isn't he saying that if the laws of nature created the universe, they would have to exist outside of time and space (ie - the created universe), and this is impossible..? And that is why they necessitate a creator...

(10)
Gershom May,
December 26, 2010 7:13 PM

Who is smarter

If there is not a creator. Then an amoeba - is smarter than all mankind's scientific intellect - that has been - or - will be. Including most of our most highly regarded intellectuals - of this age.
I've compiled a collection - of scientific assertions/assumptions and writings of/as evidence - to show a reasonable provenance/argument for this theory.
Albeit - this collection of evidence - keeps reasserting that - there is a creator designer.

(9)
Ron Krumpos,
December 26, 2010 6:53 PM

Hawking vs. Einstein

In "The Grand Design" Hawking says that we are somewhat like goldfish in a curved fishbowl. Our perceptions are limited and warped by the kind of lenses we see through, “the interpretive structure of our human brains.” Albert Einstein rejected this subjective approach, common to much of quantum mechanics, but did admit that our view of reality is distorted.
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity has the surprising consequences that “the same event, when viewed from inertial systems in motion with respect to each other, will seem to occur at different times, bodies will measure out at different lengths, and clocks will run at different speeds.” Light does travel in a curve, due to the gravity of matter, thereby distorting views from each perspective in this Universe. Similarly, mystics’ experience in divine oneness, which might be considered the same "eternal" event, viewed from various historical, cultural and personal perspectives, have occurred with different frequencies, degrees of realization and durations. This might help to explain the diversity in the expressions or reports of that spiritual awareness. What is seen is the same; it is the "seeing" which differs.
In some sciences, all existence is described as matter or energy. In some of mysticism, only consciousness exists. Dark matter is 25%, and dark energy about 70%, of the critical density of this Universe. Divine essence, also not visible, emanates and sustains universal matter (mass/energy: visible/dark) and cosmic consciousness (f(x) raised to its greatest power). During suprarational consciousness, and beyond, mystics share in that essence to varying extents. [quoted from www.suprarational.org on comparative mysticism]

(8)
Bob Applebaum,
December 26, 2010 6:37 PM

Old Illogical Argument

This is just a rehashed, Argument From Design, which is logically fallacious.
If the laws of nature and its complexity are used as evidence for the existence of a designer (God), then God is even more complex.
Therefore, since God is complex he must also have been designed. And that designer must also have been designed, and so on.
Dr. Schroeder knows that this is a logically fallacious argument (it is covered in his #11 reference), but uses it anyways,

(7)
thomas,
December 26, 2010 6:09 PM

Excellent

A truly intelligent presentation of the facts misunderstood.

(6)
John,
December 26, 2010 6:04 PM

I think Stephen Hawking, is in for a big surprise after he dies and is standing before Hashem, trying to explain to God that there is no God. Stephen you loose. This reminds me of a good joke, where these evolutionist were arguing with God that they didn't need Him to create life. So God politely responded that, that would be interesting to see how they can do that. The evolutionist said, first we get some dirt, where God interrupted and said no,no, get your own dirt.

(5)
Refoel,
December 26, 2010 5:53 PM

Occam's razor

It seems to me, in addition to the problem of convoluted logic that Dr. Schroeder points out, that the multiverse theory doesn't stand up to the Occam's razor test: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, or "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." I know this test cannot be used to overturn a scientific theory, but at the very least it highlights a glaring weakness.

(4)
Lawrence M. Flait, Esquire,
December 26, 2010 4:49 PM

G-d is in the details

One cannot help but salute the erudition of Hawking, Ph D. Ironically, the majority of scientists are overwhelmed with the simplicity, brilliance and uniqueness of the universe and other scientific phenomenon, and that leads hiim or her to the conclusion the phenomenon is a product of divine handicraft. I have been a student of the history of science, an atheist and now a bal't'shuvah to be - I prefer a universe not bound by human logic, but infused with the non-linear, existential wonderment of an all powerful being.
All remember that Einstein responded to Bohr that "G-d wouldnt' play dice with the universe..." Few quote Bohr's retort - "...don't tell G-d what to do..."
I had visited Cape Kennedy and a tour guide alluded to a Saturn rocket that, to his amazement, put out the power of 35 - 757's. I whispered to my self, "...how many 757's to create a universe? The poem Achdumus says the creation was without effort - and for me that's a scientific discovery of one's position in regard to the diety and universe.

(3)
Joseph Harris PhD.,
December 26, 2010 3:58 PM

Well intentioned nonsense.

As a physicist who is also an observant Jew, I understand the desire to find physical proof of Hashem's existence. However, as a Jew I know that Hashem hides his face (we are taught this is preserve free will.) Because of this, any search for physical evidence of Hashem is a non starter. Please understand I believe in Hashem. However, our own tradition tells us that a physical proof of His existence will not happen. Theologically, you are going nowhere, before we even get to the many scientific errors in this piece.
1. You know as a physicist, that the electric field is something different than the Higgs field. Why would you expect that electrons and protons should have the same mass? To flip it around, protons and neutrons have nearly the same mass, but one is charged and the other isn't. Why isn't that something miraculous in the same way you are describing things?
2. The first replicator could not have been DNA based. DNA requires complex proteins to replicate, be coiled and uncoiled and to be read. Many believe the first replicators were much simpler and RNA based since RNA can act as its own enzyme.
3. As with all statements of the anthropic principle, It is just like asking the odds of any historical event. What were the odds f you personally being born? The answer would come from the analysis of an infinite chain of events in your parents lives leading to your conception - not to mention just the right pair of gametes getting together at just that time. Every historical event is seemingly infinitely improbable - yet it happened. We live in a universe with abundant hydrogen. Since we are here, asking the question after the fact, is as mathematically flawed as asking the odds of one's birth. If you weren't here, possibly someone else would be. You can't adequately hindcast the probability.
4. Since when is Scientific American a "respected journal?" It is a fine magazine for lay people - but not peer reviewed.

(2)
arnold newton,
December 26, 2010 3:51 PM

Personal God.

Merely identifying God with Laws of Nature would lead us
to the pantheistic view which excludes qualities of a personal
God, very much of concern in the Torah.

(1)
Mark Gary Blumenthal, MD, MPH,
December 26, 2010 3:01 PM

Reconciling the Irreconcilable

Like Dr. Schroeder, I am both an observant Jew and a scientist, a medical doctor.
Unlike Dr. Schroeder, I make no attempt to reconcile religion and science.
I hold one viewpoint in each hand, and accept them as two equally true viewpoints, each in its own domain.
For ultimate truths about the universe and how best to live in it, I rely on Judaism, the esoteric domain, as it were.
For the empirical knowledge of this concrete world, I rely upon science and the scientific method, the exoteric domain.
According to the rules of philosophical logic, articulated magnificently by the Greek philosopher Aristotle in his works The Physics and The Metaphysics, religion relies on deductive reasoning, beginning with the First Principle, i.e. God, and derives all other principles by deduction.
Thus, religion begins and ends with ‘Ultimate Truth’.
Scientific method relies on inductive reasoning, beginning with data collection, data analysis, theory generation, and theory testing using statistical methods.
Unlike religion, science cannot arrive at ‘Ultimate Truth’, but that is not its appropriate goal.
IMHO, both religious reductionism and scientific reductionism attempt to anthropomorphize both God and the Cosmos and thus undermine the essential mystery of each.
Dr. Schroeder is not the first to attempt such reconciliation, nor will he be the last. His efforts represent a way to find peace and comfort by reconciling an irreconcilable dialectic.
The Rambam made similar attempts after reading Aristotle in Arabic. He got Judaism right, but he got Aristotle wrong.
I respect what Dr. Schroeder is attempting to accomplish as well as his apparent goals, but I consider them ‘the easy way out’ for any serious philosopher of either science or religion.

I just got married and have an important question: Can we eat rice on Passover? My wife grew up eating it, and I did not. Is this just a matter of family tradition?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The Torah instructs a Jew not to eat (or even possess) chametz all seven days of Passover (Exodus 13:3). "Chametz" is defined as any of the five grains (wheat, spelt, barley, oats, and rye) that came into contact with water for more than 18 minutes. Chametz is a serious Torah prohibition, and for that reason we take extra protective measures on Passover to prevent any mistakes.

Hence the category of food called "kitniyot" (sometimes referred to generically as "legumes"). This includes rice, corn, soy beans, string beans, peas, lentils, peanuts, mustard, sesame seeds and poppy seeds. Even though kitniyot cannot technically become chametz, Ashkenazi Jews do not eat them on Passover. Why?

Products of kitniyot often appear like chametz products. For example, it can be hard to distinguish between rice flour (kitniyot) and wheat flour (chametz). Also, chametz grains may become inadvertently mixed together with kitniyot. Therefore, to prevent confusion, all kitniyot were prohibited.

In Jewish law, there is one important distinction between chametz and kitniyot. During Passover, it is forbidden to even have chametz in one's possession (hence the custom of "selling chametz"). Whereas it is permitted to own kitniyot during Passover and even to use it - not for eating - but for things like baby powder which contains cornstarch. Similarly, someone who is sick is allowed to take medicine containing kitniyot.

What about derivatives of kitniyot - e.g. corn oil, peanut oil, etc? This is a difference of opinion. Many will use kitniyot-based oils on Passover, while others are strict and only use olive or walnut oil.

Finally, there is one product called "quinoa" (pronounced "ken-wah" or "kin-o-ah") that is permitted on Passover even for Ashkenazim. Although it resembles a grain, it is technically a grass, and was never included in the prohibition against kitniyot. It is prepared like rice and has a very high protein content. (It's excellent in "cholent" stew!) In the United States and elsewhere, mainstream kosher supervision agencies certify it "Kosher for Passover" -- look for the label.

Interestingly, the Sefardi Jewish community does not have a prohibition against kitniyot. This creates the strange situation, for example, where one family could be eating rice on Passover - when their neighbors will not. So am I going to guess here that you are Ashkenazi and your wife is Sefardi. Am I right?

Yahrtzeit of Rabbi Moses ben Nachman (1194-1270), known as Nachmanides, and by the acronym of his name, Ramban. Born in Spain, he was a physician by trade, but was best-known for authoring brilliant commentaries on the Bible, Talmud, and philosophy. In 1263, King James of Spain authorized a disputation (religious debate) between Nachmanides and a Jewish convert to Christianity, Pablo Christiani. Nachmanides reluctantly agreed to take part, only after being assured by the king that he would have full freedom of expression. Nachmanides won the debate, which earned the king's respect and a prize of 300 gold coins. But this incensed the Church: Nachmanides was charged with blasphemy and he was forced to flee Spain. So at age 72, Nachmanides moved to Jerusalem. He was struck by the desolation in the Holy City -- there were so few Jews that he could not even find a minyan to pray. Nachmanides immediately set about rebuilding the Jewish community. The Ramban Synagogue stands today in Jerusalem's Old City, a living testimony to his efforts.

It's easy to be intimidated by mean people. See through their mask. Underneath is an insecure and unhappy person. They are alienated from others because they are alienated from themselves.

Have compassion for them. Not pity, not condemning, not fear, but compassion. Feel for their suffering. Identify with their core humanity. You might be able to influence them for the good. You might not. Either way your compassion frees you from their destructiveness. And if you would like to help them change, compassion gives you a chance to succeed.

It is the nature of a person to be influenced by his fellows and comrades (Rambam, Hil. De'os 6:1).

We can never escape the influence of our environment. Our life-style impacts upon us and, as if by osmosis, penetrates our skin and becomes part of us.

Our environment today is thoroughly computerized. Computer intelligence is no longer a science-fiction fantasy, but an everyday occurrence. Some computers can even carry out complete interviews. The computer asks questions, receives answers, interprets these answers, and uses its newly acquired information to ask new questions.

Still, while computers may be able to think, they cannot feel. The uniqueness of human beings is therefore no longer in their intellect, but in their emotions.

We must be extremely careful not to allow ourselves to become human computers that are devoid of feelings. Our culture is in danger of losing this essential aspect of humanity, remaining only with intellect. Because we communicate so much with unfeeling computers, we are in danger of becoming disconnected from our own feelings and oblivious to the feelings of others.

As we check in at our jobs, and the computer on our desk greets us with, "Good morning, Mr. Smith. Today is Wednesday, and here is the agenda for today," let us remember that this machine may indeed be brilliant, but it cannot laugh or cry. It cannot be happy if we succeed, or sad if we fail.

Today I shall...

try to remain a human being in every way - by keeping in touch with my own feelings and being sensitive to the feelings of others.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...